(can of worms alert) Globe hasn't warmed in the last 16 years 76

[beej67]

Worth a read. One significance of the article to me is the 'skeptic' isn't a loon, she's the head of the EAS department at Georgia Tech.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

Regarding the falsifability of the CAGW theory, the major tenet of the theory is the energy imbalance that is empirically demonstrated through satellite observations. We also know the outgoing long wave radiation is lower at wavelengths associated with CO2 absorption (Harries 2001) and radiative surface forcing has increased at wavelengths associated with CO2 (Evans 2006). We also know the global temperature has risen since the industrial revolution (yes, with a slow down over the last 16 years, I’ll get to that). Neither of these are points of contention for scientists in the field, on BOTH sides of the fence (it’s the magnitude of the effect that CO2 has on the temperature, or climate sensitivity, that is point of contention).

If the greenhouse gas theory was overturned, then the CAGW theory would be falsified. However, it is important to note the difference between the greenhouse gas theory and how it affects the complex global climate, climate sensitivity. The former can, and has, been tested, and verified, in laboratory (physical, not model) simulations as well as through satellite spectroscopy.

The CAGW theory can also be falsified if the premise that the greenhouse gas effect, caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, is not a significant driver in the global climate change. Now, many here will jump on this and say “ah ha, it has been “proven” to not be a significant driver; therefore you’ve admitted the CAGW theory is falsified”. This is not true. When discussing a subject that cannot be easily proven or disproven by a simple lab experiment, a consensus is formed through a body of evidence resulting from years of research and hundreds (or thousands) of papers and the theory is not falsified by an equally robust body of evidence. If, for example, the argument that “it’s the sun” gains a body of evidence explaining the recent warming more accurately than the CAGW theory, then it could become the leading theory. However, as it currently stands, that is not the case.

If you argue that “the consensus shouldn’t matter, it’s what nature shows that is important (and insert the Feynman quote)”. As I stated above, the scale and complexity of the problem means that you can’t create an experiment to test the theory. Our only test is what is actually happening around us. Again, many will jump on this and say “ah ha, it hasn’t warmed in X years; therefore, by your very definition, nature has proven the CAGW theory wrong”. Again, this is not true. Surface temperatures have not raised that much in the past 16 years, true. However, we (1) still have an energy imbalance and (2) we are starting to do more research into ocean temperature changes which show that deep oceans appear to be heating up. We’ve also continued to see Arctic ice extent, ocean acidification as well as a slew of other environmental affects predicted by CAGW.

I would also argue, as Brad1979 has, that although there has been a recent slowdown in the rate of warming as of late, it still falls within the IPCC predicted range. Just because you refuse to click the link, doesn’t make it go away. If you’re so fussy about Skeptical Science, here’s from another site or a link to the paper Foster and Rahmstorf 2012. And no one is arguing that these models are perfect, as more research comes in and our understanding grows, the models improve. However, no body of evidence has completely reversed the temperature trend, they just push the slope of the line up or down a bit.

On a closing note, TGS4, I agree that “denier” is a rather “charged” term, I think it just further polarizes the debate. However, I’m also fed up with terms like “believer”, “alarmist”, “AGW religion” and “bow to the altar of AGW”.

 

[2dye4]

tgs4

Where did i say climate is stable in the absence of human interference??

Climate is changing without any known reason other than the well understood CO2 forcing problem.

Are you sure there were no positive feedback warming events in the time span you listed??
Note that just because there is positive feedback this does not imply the effect is boundless.
Actually I think I have read a scientific paper outlining a period of time when just such a feedback appears to
have happened, I'll look it up.

Where does the IPCC "consensus" say that humans releasing CO2 is the sole cause of warming???
I don't believe it says that unless taken out of context by someone with an agenda or comprehension problem.

WRT the mars lander issue. It still was not proven that it would work on the surface of mars. Several people
have drawn an artificial distinction on my examples ( mars rover, earthquake reinforcement of buildings ) but
both are examples of effort expended based on only probable events. There is precedent for spending resources to
mitigate the impact of unlikely but still possible events.

rb1957
""i think that since we understand the causality""
You mean like when we observed things falling toward masses and then made up a name for this phenomena "gravity" and
now claim that this naming implies that we understand the 'causality'??
Sorry it is another artificial distinction. All that we humans really do is learn from correlated observations.
You cannot prove that an apple will fall to the ground, case closed..

Cranky
C'mon florescent bulbs, I would have thought you had something a little more meaningful. BTW LED tech may soon
replace them, and what about the mercury not emitted by power plants with widespread CFL usage.
And florescents have been around with the same risk for what 60 yrs ??

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - thank you very much for the well thought out and well written reply. Until you said "ocean acidification", I was pretty much right with you (you do appreciate that the ocean is rather basic and any additional partial pressure of CO2, converted to carbonic acid must first neutralize the basic condition of the ocean water...)

The first figure from Tamino's (the pseudonym that Dr. Grant Foster likes to go by in the blogosphere) blog is the heart and soul of this discussion. I agree that the current temperature trend is within the full range of possible temperature outcomes from the model simulations. However, if you focus on the model simulations that use, as inputs, the current CO2 rate of increase, then the current temperature trend falls below the possible temperature scenarios. Although the fluctuations are what would be expected in a chaotic system.

I also think that whatever baseline is chosen - 10, 12, 15, 16, 17 years to "demonstrate" that the slope of the T/t curve is whatever value we want is cherry picking. Both sides are guilty of it.

As far as natural changes go, until a few years ago, we didn't even know about or understand phenomenon such as AMO (Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation), PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), AO (Arctic Oscillation), and we still don't have an understand of how ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) is a cause or effect or whatever of anything. That doesn't get into any sort of water-cycle thermostatic effect, GCR-cloud seeding (Galactic Cosmic Ray). While there are a bunch of things that we know - and you have hit the nail on the head of some of them, saying that CAGW, or AGW is the only viable hypothesis because we don't what else it could be is only argumentum ad ignoratiam - a logical fallacy.

Perhaps, over the next 5-8 decades, we will learn more, make more experiments, and take more data. Then, we can refine our models, including some of the natural effects. Perhaps, just perhaps after all that time, with suitable tweaking of the hypothesis, and demonstrated lack of falsifiable evidence, it is possible that AGW is demonstrated to be the only likely scenario. I don't discount that possibility. However, today, we aren't there - we're not even close. I mean, some of these natural cyclic systems haven't even gone through 1/4 a period.

I also think that over the next solar cycle, we will have the opportunity to test some of the basic science portions of the consensus theory vis a vis the sun's effects. It will be 16-20 years but it has the hallmarks of being very interesting.

 

[SNORGY]

If the globe is indeed warming, it is only because the rest of the planet is sucking all of the heat out of Alberta.

 

[rb1957]

the more we learn about climate (or pretty much anything) the less we really know ('cause what we learned raises more questions)

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

florescent bulbs have been around for some time, however Hg at one time was not consitered a health risk. Until recently, a relitive term, very few florescent bulbs were in peoples homes.

And while it is true that minor minerals, like Sulfer and Hg are released into the air during the burning of coal, the same can also be said about natural gas. The issue is the amount in the orignal fuel, and how much is removed in the exaust. There was a time when Hg in coal plants were not monitored, but it has only been a concern when the amount of sulfer dropped. Like a moving target, when one problem is solved, another one is pointed at. This will continue until coal is run out of town.

The fact is while you may not like coal as a fuel, there is no other fuel with a cost as low as coal, in the quanties that can replace it right now. Gas may come close, but it still is not in the quanties needed. And if gas was in the quantities needed here, then coal would become an export, because few other countries have that much gas either.
It here, and it's a fact until we find something better. Goverment regulation can't make it go away, just more expencive.

All the same to me, it appears the goverment is trying to use the climate change thing to consolidate power, through more regulations.

 

[zdas04]

This could have been an interesting academic discussion. There was an hypotheses. It has evolved into a theory. Some data and observations seem to support the theory. Some interpretations of the data and observations lead to other conclusions. Science at its best.

Then enter a sensationalist media, corrupt governments, and petty environmentalists and we get the Inquisition. Any climate scientist who does not bow before the alter of this theory is a heretic and is not considered for tenure, can't get grants, doesn't attract grad students, and either changes his position or is drummed out of the field and sometimes out of science altogether.

I object to the suppression of alternate ideas. I object to the way that people with alternate ideas are marginalized. I object to adulterated data. I object to sanctioned optimism in the analysis of data. I object. During the last Inquisition this paragraph would have gotten me scourged at the least and probably executed. During this version I'm a "denier", a "wacko" and I'm flooded with "statistics" like "96% of people who call themselves climate scientists agree ..." which is like saying that "96% of Christians agree that ... (I won't fill in the rest because that would turn into a discussion of the proof of the tenets of Christianity and I've dragged the discussion into too many weeds already)".

Believers adamantly contend that there is "over whelming" "irrefutable" "proof" of the things that they take on "faith". I have no problem with beliefs, or faith, or commitment to a religion--those are all very personal things that are actually no one's business except the beliver's. My problem is being told that your beliefs have value (e.g., 200 million Christians can't be wrong) while mine don't. That kind of thinking starts wars, and this thread (along with the dozen other AGW threads that have gone viral) is a perfect illustration of the dangers of trying to convert others to your belief system--they are often unwilling to abandon their own belief system. I have read through this and a couple of other AGW threads this morning (I'm on the left hand side of the International Date Line this week) and I can't see a single time that anyone has converted anyone from one side of the discussion to the other side. We are all just talking at each other, and the recipient is cherry picking the word or phrase that he can attack.

rconnor, I'm sorry that you object to the term AGW Religion, in my world, if it quacks like a duck, etc. then I'm going to call it a duck.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - since you asked...

If a century later the climate remains stable and no other factors have intervened then the hypothesis could be said to be proven wrong.

Climate is changing without any known reason other than the well understood CO2 forcing problem.

Seriously? We haven't even begun to quantify the factors that effect climate. And yet what I see is people sticking their fingers in their ears and closing their eyes saying "it can't be anything else".

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations

- found here.

I never said that all feedbacks are negative - I can think of one that is positive right now - black soot on snow. One of the biggest issues that I have in all of this - and perhaps it's because these scientists are trying to discuss the topic with lay people, the way that everything is described as linear functions. What about periodicity (sine/cosine), or non-linear functions (a feedback may be positive at a particular temperature and then turn negative at a slightly higher temperature. Even the "climate sensitivity" may be a function of instantaneous temperature - which may explain the difference in rate of change of T/t in polar regions vs the tropics. As engineers we deal with highly non-linear systems all the time and while it may be handy to deal in chunks of linearity, we (hopefully) acknowledge the non-linearity of the system.

Actually, that brings me to my final beef about how this entire discussion is being had - as rconnor rightly pointed out, the issue is energy/power and not temperature. Why are we dealing with temperature and not energy? A 10 degree difference in Tuktoyaktuk in January is much different than a 10 degree difference in Miami in July (heat capacity of the air, plus the heat capacity of the water vapour in the air). We simply don't have enough data right now to make 30 years' worth of trends based on temperature-plus -relative humidity.

 

[rconnor]

Why does every statement have to end with an ad hominin attack?

I'm sorry that you object to the term AGW Religion, in my world, if it quacks like a duck, etc. then I'm going to call it a duck

During the last Inquisition this paragraph would have gotten me scourged at the least and probably executed.

Relating CAGW to the Inquisition? One of the darkest times in human history? Really? Relating CAGW to a religion is bad enough but this is absurd. I agreed that "denier" is charged term but asked that the connection between CAGW and religion be dropped. You responded by continuing the connection to the Inquisition...

I don't know too many religions that produce peer reviewed papers supporting their physical theories. I don't know to many religions that use satellite data to empirically test theories (such as the CO2 as a greenhouse gas, which you (somehow) won't/can't accept...despite most the people on your side of the debate stating it is not a controversial topic).

Sure some non-experts will blindly cling to data or a "conclusion" as proof for their side, this is true for both sides of the debate. Sure there are many points of the CAGW theory that can be questioned (re-read my comment on the falsibility of the CAGW theory). However, to think that the scientific community has been corrupted by evil governments trying to form a one-world government, is conspiracy theory lacking in proof. Before you bring up climategate, I'd like to remind you that 9 different, independent review of climategate all showed there was no scientific wrong-doing. They concluded that they were merely "sound bytes" taken out of context in order to try to make something from nothing. Don't you just hate when people do that!

 

[zdas04]

EVERY religion uses peer reviewed papers to support their theories. The Vatican has upwards of a million of such documents. The Mormon Tabernacle is floating on them. The modern versions of these documents include extensive satellite data.

I have personally looked at several dozen of the documents from "climategate" (I hate that phrase) and the evidence I saw was absolutely damning. Data manipulated. Arguments about how much manipulation someone could "get away with". Conclusions in papers manipulated. Damning. If 900 people say it ain't so, but data that I have actually read says it is so, then I will go with the data I've read.

Some of the reports of Professors who can't get a job today because of their stance on this subject seem very much like the "One of the darkest times in human history".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[rconnor]

Not backing away from the religion/Inquisition thing...ok.

Your definitions of "belief", "prejudice" and "knowledge", for reference.

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.

"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.

"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

If 900 people say it ain't so, but data that I have actually read says it is so, then I will go with the data I've read.

- Those people aren't random engineers, they are experts assigned to investigate the research. Again, all 9 found no wrong doing. You are welcome to believe (and believe is used in accordance with your own definition) what you want to believe.
- Perhaps your data is more compelling than the conclusions reached by the experts, you're welcome to provide it. Not doing so would be prejudice (and prejudice is used in accordance with your own definition).
- Here are links and excerpts from the various reviews
1) Penn State Review "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2) UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
3) U of East Anglia
4) EPA
5) Department of Commerce
6) National Science Foundation
- Is that what you mean by "knowledge"?

I absolutely dispute the "science" that claims that there even is a "greenhouse effect"

You're going to lose that one zdas. There is absolutely a greenhouse effect. How much anthropogenic carbon contributes heavily to it is certainly questionable. You should adopt that as a fallback position.

Saying it don't make it so.

(you got a star for this comment, btw)
- Harries 2001 Evans 2006 and a link to a whole bunch more
- Ahh...but all those papers are because the peer review wall blocking the REAL research!....well let's see what prominent skeptics have to say on the matter:
- Monckton: "Is there a greenhouse effect? Concedo. Does it warm the Earth? Concedo. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Concedo. If carbon dioxide be added to the atmosphere, will warming result? Concedo."
- Spencer: "infrared-absorbing gases warm the surface and lower atmosphere"
- Singer: "One of [their] favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics...One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence"
- Skeptics dispute the magnitude of warming caused by further increases to the CO2 concentration but they do not dispute the greenhouse effect.

You constantly attack those in agreement with the CAGW theory as being blinded by their preconceptions, unwilling or unable to see the true conclusion from the data. They cling to the dogma of AGW. You claim they "bow to the altar of AGW". Perhaps you bow to a different altar?

Now, for the rest of this post, I don't mean to discredit any of your individual view points nor am I trying to support the opposite; my point is to illustrate the common thread and how that would come into play when you assess data regarding CAGW.

No, because I see practical socialism as a plot by a small number to enslave the masses for their own good.

"Carbon taxes" are showing up progressively more vividly as "wealth redistribution"

The religion of AGW has reached a status where it must be resisted by everyone who has not been inducted into the religion if the economies of the world are to survive (yes, that is pretty dramatic, it is also based on solid data, I can't tell you with confidence how the climate works, but I can tell you how Cap & Trade works by looking at the graft and theft in the existing programs).

Abolish the Department of Education. Same with heath care. Abolish Health and Human Services. Same with Department of Energy.

There is a common thread of being against socialism, taxes, big government and regulation; perhaps it's the altar of capitalism that you bow to? Certainly the dogma there would be against any theory that would lead to more regulation and a restriction on consumption. To accept the theory would go against your beliefs. Cognitive dissonance. Again, I repeat, I'm not trying to discredit a capitalist viewpoint or promote a socialist viewpoint (or whatever you consider the opposite to be), I'm just highlighting a clear bias. Like it or not, if you say we (or I) have our altar than I am well within reason to say that the other side has theirs.

Both sides have biases, both sides are guilty of seeing the data they want to see and ignoring what they don't. Recognizing those biases is important to a rational discussion.

 

[zdas04]

There is no way to eliminate bias. Mostly people (myself probably more than most) don't even try.

Your list of irrefutable sources whos expertise cannot be questioned includes all of the employers of the people damned by so called climategate. One could claim that they had a vested interest in clearing the researchers of wrong doing. If we were talking about a problem in the Oil & Gas industry, a clean slate from a group of Oil Companies or even those schools tied to the industry (e.g., Texas A&M, University of Tulsa, Univ of Texas, Colorado School of Mines, etc) would be seen by the media as a whitewash, but in Climate "Science" who do you ask beyond the very institutions that have a significant portion of their funding provided by the pro-AGW lobby (e.g., law firms like Earth First, Wild Earth Guardians, or Sierra Club) and corrupt governments? These institutions all had a significant portion of their staff indicted by the e-mails. I call "foul" and put no faith in the report.

I am a computer modeler. Been writing models for over 20 years. I know the value of models. I know the shortcomings of models. If I can develop a model that does an acceptable job of representing past reality, then I have some confidence that the model can be extrapolated forward a very short distance. Hours are usually OK. Days are sometimes reasonable, weeks are rarely reasonable, months and years are unlikely to be valid, decades are outrageous. If anyone can show evidence of AGW that does not include projections from computer models I'll listen. Any statement that starts with "the model shows ..." is white noise to me, I won't even try to make sense from it.

As a modeler and an Engineer, Data is King. Nothing I ever do changes source data between creation and first storage. Period. A data set that cannot be traced back to a calibrated instrument without interference is simply noise. That traceable data set simply doesn't exist in the climate discussion. Everyone puts "heat island effects" (which have different magnitudes from different researchers), "open ocean effects", etc. onto the data prior to first storage. Adulterated data is just noise and I'm not going to try to draw conclusions from it. I look at the atmospheric CO2 data from the high observatories and see that CO2 magnitude has changed. Unequivocally changed with time on an increasing trend. That is an observation based on high-quality data that has not been manipulated. That observation does not prove that CO2 is a cause or an effect of climate change, it just says the atmospheric CO2 has increased. Do you see the difference?

I'm in Australia right now watching the machinations revolving around their new Carbon Tax. People are starting to ask why middlemen are starting to get very wealthy from this program. The EU is making noise about eliminating their version because of the corruption. Observations in human space say that this discussion is about wealth transfer, not environmental protection.

In this discussion my "religion" is the Constitution of the United States. The goal of that document was to constrain the federal government to those (very limited) activities that cannot be done better by someone else. I am a capitalist in that I think that the fruits of my labor can be better consumed by me and mine than by non-tax-paying citizens. I've seen the generational results of the dole (I grew up in a very poor county in the Ozarks) and there really are people who should be allowed to find their own way without government "help" that is really "enabling" anti-social and destructive behavior. Adults need to live with the consequences of their actions.

On reflection, I like the information in my signature more than ever.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[beej67]

I find it rather silly that you guys are arguing about this, when in point of fact, the global warming doomsday models have been shown demonstratively to be wrong, because the globe hasn't warmed in the last 16 years and every single one of the doomsday GW models said it would absolutely warm over the last 16 years given anthropogenic carbon output. Proof is in the pudding and the pudding is out of the oven.

That anthropogenic carbon plays some part in global climate seems sensible, but the degree to which it plays was vastly overstated by all the modeling efforts of the 90s that led us to the fear and doom predictions of late 90s climate scientists. That's fact, it's inked, it's in the books, there's no use arguing over it. As they say in sports, "Scoreboard."

The fact that these models failed speaks mostly to how dumb it is to calibrate a model to one variable (carbon) without establishing a causal relationship first via experimental science. Anthro carbon increases with warming historically, but so does every other thing that the human race does to change our environment, and all those other things are downplayed or ignored in the models. Pretty important things. Like manipulating the global hydrologic cycle, mechanized agriculture, production of direct heat (which can be seen from space, btw) etc. A lot of very sloppy science has been thrown at trying to downplay the effect of urbanization on macroclimate, despite it's very significant, measurable, obvious effects on microclimate.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[2dye4]

""There is no way to eliminate bias. Mostly people (myself probably more than most) don't even try.""

That statement eliminates you from any credible scientific discussion.

You have made your mind up, have numerous ill conceived scientific ideas, and a touch of paranoia.

""It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.""

Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

 

[zdas04]

Maybe it does eliminate me from any credible scientific discussion. I think it also eliminates every scientist I've ever known, but we were talking about me, not human nature. Can you point me to a credible scientific discussion so I can see if I'm able to unload my bias? AGW ain't it.

My "numerous ill conceived ideas and touch of paranoia" have led me to be right on whole bunch of things that the "common wisdom" said I was totally wrong on. Someone once asked me "If I told you that 100 Engineers out of the 100 Engineers that I know all hold the exact opposite opinion to the one you just said, what would you reply?" I said I would reply "I am amazed that you know 100 Engineers". On that particular topic the company decided to abandon the conventional wisdom and do the project my way. My way is out performing the production from the offset wells by 40% with costs reduced by 70%, so I guess the consensus was wrong in that case. Doesn't extrapolate that the consensus is always wrong, but accepting that the consensus is always right is a good way to absolutely stop progress since no consensus ever came up with anything new. New stuff comes from a single mind. Not a committee.

So pardon me if I'm happy with my ill conceived ideas and touch of paranoia. I recently got a patent (Patent No. 8,429,999 issue date May 14, 2013) on a separator in spite of my patent attorney and the patent office rep both saying "the Patent Office never issues patents on entire separators, there is just no way to differentiate an entire separator design enough to make it unique". I went against the grain and now have a patent and have signed a manufacturing license with a local fab shop. All the major players in Australia CSG are considering it. Consensus is a lousy way to do either science or Engineering. I guess that is just another example of my ill conceived ideas and touch of paranoia.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[rb1957]

how about them 'Leafs ? ... i mean we've brought every other aspect of human endeavour and society into this thread, so let's have sports too !

"climategate" has exposed some of the inner (hidden) workings behind the "science" and, sorry, i don't put much weight behind "not guilty" decisions given by the folks who do their "peer review".

McIntyre has shown that statistical methods accepted by environmental sciencists (Mann's papers were peer reviewed) are invalid, so comments like "The so-called “trick” was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field." are receieved with some skepticism.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[2dye4]

Zdas

What eliminates you and separates you from most scientists is your statement about mostly not trying to correct your bias.

Is this what George W Bush meant when he said he wasn't going to 'argue with himself'?

Introspection is necessary to maintain rationality even among non scientists.

Now my take on your points.

The primary data type collected in temperature reconstructions is the time series. Time series of temperature readings, tree rings, CO2 entrapment in ice and many many others are all brought together to reduce the uncertainty of climate reconstruction estimates. Each series when time aligned will show some small trace of a common 'shape' that indicates overall global temperature change. The scientists do their best to distill this trend out of all known factors ( corrections to the records for known biases ) and arrive at reconstructions with relatively small 95% confidence intervals. Sure it is statistics but then how many instances of walking and talking like a duck does one need.
The calibration of sources is only necessary if changes occurred during the records time period because in the end the average value of each record is removed to show only the trend.

When data is corrected for known biases the original data is kept not thrown away and the corrected data is used.

Some models can be extrapolated more than others. How about this one i take from the top of my head.
T=55 + 30*cos(2*pi*day/365-pi)
I say with this model i can give you an expected temperature F ( average ) for Columbus Oh for any day in the year 2030.

It is of course only a model of the seasons, but it only diverges (if ever ) if the climate changes.
Some models have infinite timelines unless conditions change.
This is why climate modeling is not weather prediction.

The mathematics behind this modeling is actually quite sophisticated and one would be wrong to conclude he can fully comment without the specific training.

The hockey stick is alive and well no matter what conspiracy theories are out there.

http://www.woodfortrees.org

BTW here is a climate model given as a partial diff equation dating from 1980 that turned out to be
surprisingly accurate.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...g-a-1981-temperature-projection/#ITEM-11398-0

 

[rb1957]

1) your model for the temp in Columbus is horrible, assuming day 1 is jan 1st (but that is an asusmption !)

2) i went your your link supporting the hockey stick ("The hockey stick is alive and well"), but i didn't see anything refuting McIntyre's work.

3) calling McIntyre's work "conspiracy theories" is just plain rude. As a statistian he analyzes Mann's model and found fundamental flawes with the data and the data reduction. he showed you got the "hockey stick" result using white noise.

but then i guess you're a "believer".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

2dye4,
Condescension thing working for you this morning? Been trying to convince teenagers to clean their rooms and abstain from sex? Not many teenagers here and your silly assertions ain't flying very far.

The problem I have with the tree ring data and the ice core data is that every single one of the readings has a +/- time band around the dating. Some of it is +/- 100 years. So if I have a warming record that is 500-700 years old and a CO2 reading that is 500-700 years old it is just as likely that the temperature changed 600 years ago and the CO2 changed 595 years ago as the alternative. Both dates are in the dead band. Someone looking for causality assumes that CO2 changed 605 years ago and Temperature followed an appropriate time later. This data simply does not have the resolution to support the conclusions. CO2 as a result of warming instead of a cause of warming is just as plausible as the alternative.

Yes, yes the data is thrown away. The "heat island" correction (for example) is applied to the field data before first storage. Different owners of data sets apply different corrections so there is no way to assess the actual magnitude of this effect except through computer models.

I'm not going to comment on your "climate model" beyond saying that inside every climate model there are equations that are nearly that silly. But when you put thousands of them together and run them through millions of iterations you get numbers that Katie Couric and Al Gore accept as factual.

The mathematics behind this modeling is actually quite sophisticated and one would be wrong to conclude he can fully comment without the specific training.

You are kidding right? The climate is a fluid-mechanics system. My MS is in fluid mechanics. It is a subject that I have some small knowledge of and an intense interest in. The basis for all fluid dynamics is called the Navier-Stokes equation. The last major solution to that equation was done by Daniel Bernoulli in 1783. Not a lot of closed form solutions have been accomplished since then. A few special cases with limited applicability. All of the "sophisticated" mathematics in climate "science" are increasingly complex and increasingly narrow empirical equations that are basically statistical coincidences. I'd never knock empirical models, but to claim they constitute sophisticated science is a stretch. Mostly they represent the absence of science, I know the ones I developed for my Master's Thesis were more about fitting an equation to a fairly small data set (a few million records) than it was about honoring first principles. My advisory committee were very excited by the equations and wouldn't listen when I followed up after graduation with the information that in extended field application they turned out to be very wrong. The professors had ruled the work "great" and didn't want that assessment challenged. Maybe I'm not the only one with biases.



David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[2dye4]

I await your revelation of which of my assertions are silly.

If the time series suffered from misalignment then the trend would be suppressed, see the triangle inequality WRT vector spaces.

The resolution comes not from analyzing isolated segments of individual time series but taking the whole together.

One argument about cause and effect of this issue stirs up debate about which came first CO2 or warming, but as any climate scientist will explain the two are linked in feedback so this question is moot by itself. Either will elicit the other.

I am surprised that the original data is not saved anywhere prior to corrections, I agree this is bad science but not a deal breaker. After all the corrections are documented for each data set.

My climate model for Columbus OH is meant to illustrate that some aspects of climate relatively stable and do not run off into chaotic error which seems to be your implication about climate models. Certainly fluid dynamics does this but then climate is mostly much large than the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere, you may be thinking of weather and not climate.

Congratulations on your very successful fluid flow modeling via the Navier-Stokes equations as this one of the most difficult applied mathematics problems and with time the solutions eventually devolve into chaos as you have indicated.

However the temperature of the fluid after a heating input and mixing is a much simpler problem as you know from freshman physics and the specific heat quantity.

One question, are you familiar with 'principle component analysis' ??
This is atmosphere modeling introduction topic and required for any reasonable discussion of combining time series for the purpose of estimating causal factors.